Braggs v. Dunn

EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs,v.JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.

PHASE 2A OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS'
SECOND REQUEST TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON
SEGREGATION

MYRON
H. THOMPSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This
cause, in which the court held that the defendants are liable
for violating the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, see Braggsv. Dunn, 257
F.Supp.3d 1171 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (Thompson, J.), is before the
court on plaintiffs' second motion to present limited
additional evidence on segregation remedy, specifically
regarding an alleged inmate suicide. For the reasons below,
the motion will be granted, with the proviso that the
evidence on the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment segregation remedy
will thereafter be closed, and that future evidence pending
the issuance of any remedial order will not be heard absent
extraordinary circumstances.

I.
BACKGROUND

On
February 28, 2018, the court stated that the evidence in the
segregation remedial trial was closed, with the exception of
certain additional evidence regarding the Bibb County
Correctional Facility. See Order (doc. no. 1689)
(recognizing that evidence was closed with that exception).
Subsequently, on March 29, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
present limited additional evidence regarding the segregation
remedy (“first motion”). See Pls.'
Request to Present Limited Additional Evidence Regarding
Segregation (doc. no. 1719). The motion sought to introduce
evidence about an alleged suicide that was committed in a
segregation unit at Holman Correctional Facility on February
27 by an inmate who was on the mental-health caseload but not
identified by the defendants as having a serious mental
illness (SMI). The defendants responded to the motion.
See Defs.' Response in Opposition to Pls.'
Request to Present Limited Additional Evidence (doc. no.
1727). After hearing oral argument during an on-the-record
conference call, the court granted the first motion and set
an evidentiary hearing for April 23, 2018. See Order
(doc. no. 1733).

A few
days later, the plaintiffs submitted the pending second
motion to present evidence regarding an additional alleged
suicide (“second motion”), which is said to have
been committed on March 31 by an inmate in segregation at St.
Clair Correctional Facility. See Pls.' Second
Request to Present Limited Additional Evidence Regarding
Segregation (doc. no. 1747). The inmate allegedly was not on
the caseload when he entered segregation, but after a
prolonged period in segregation was subsequently placed on
the caseload, although never identified as having an SMI. The
court held an on-the-record conference call to discuss the
motion on April 6, and then allowed the defendants time to
respond in writing. See Defs.' Response in
Opposition to Pls.' Second Request to Present Limited
Additional Evidence (doc. no. 1753).

II.
DISCUSSION

The
plaintiffs' second motion argues that “[e]vidence
relating to the recent suicides in segregation is directly
relevant to the segregation remedies the Court has yet to
order, ” because it will “show that addressing
understaffing and removing people with serious mental
illnesses from segregation--the two main components of
Defendants' proposed remedial plan--will not alone be
sufficient to remedy the ongoing constitutional violations
the Court found with regard to segregation.” Pls.'
Second Request to Present Limited Additional Evidence
Regarding Segregation (doc. no. 1747) at 2. It further
explains that plaintiffs have been approved for a visit with
likely witnesses for April 10 and anticipate being able to
identify their testifying witnesses for defendants during the
week of April 9. Id. at 3. In addition, the
plaintiffs assured the court during the April 6 conference
call that, if the motion were granted, they would be prepared
to put on the evidence during the April 23 hearing already
scheduled on the first motion.

The
defendants raised several objections during the April 6
conference call and in their subsequent written response: (1)
the proposed additional evidence is irrelevant to the issue
of segregation remedy, and would be more appropriately heard
during the remedy hearing on suicide prevention, currently
scheduled for September 10, 2018; (2) the additional evidence
is cumulative, and hearing it would undermine judicial
economy; (3) the defendants would be unfairly prejudiced
because none of the witnesses have yet been identified, and
so introduction of the evidence amounts to “trial by
ambush”; and (4) the plaintiffs' continued
submission of “and-one-more-thing” type requests
admits of no logical end point. The court addresses each of
these objections in turn.

With
regard to relevance, the plaintiffs argue--as with their
first motion--that an alleged suicide by an inmate who was on
the mental-health caseload, but who was not
identified as having as having an SMI, tends to show that the
defendants' proposed remedial plan fails to address
sufficiently the violations found with regard to non-SMIs.
That is, the alleged decompensation and suicide of a prisoner
not identified as having an SMI tends to support the
plaintiffs' position that the defendants' plan
focuses primarily on inmates with SMIs, but affords little
relief to (1) inmates who are on the caseload but do not have
SMIs, (2) inmates who are not on the caseload but who have
unidentified serious mental-health needs, and (3) inmates who
enter segregation without serious-mental health needs but
subsequently pass into the plaintiff class by developing
those needs as a result of placement in segregation.
See Pls.' Response to Defs.' Proposed
Segregation Remedial Plan (doc. no. 1546) at 43-46.
Secondarily, the plaintiffs also argued on the conference
call that the proposed evidence is relevant because it tends
to show that the current monitoring and suicide-proofing of
cells are insufficient, and by extension that a plan that
does not swiftly address these ongoing problems is
inadequate. The defendants did not substantially rebut these
arguments, but rather repeated the fact, which both parties
acknowledge, that the court had previously closed evidence
with respect to segregation remedy with the possible
exception of Bibb County Correctional Facility, and that the
proposed evidence does not relate to Bibb. Without reaching
the merits of the plaintiffs' contentions regarding the
proposed segregation remedy, or whether the proposed evidence
will in fact support those contentions when heard,
the court is satisfied that the evidence is relevant for
these reasons.

As to
the defendants' suggestion that the second motion's
proposed evidence should be heard during the September 10
hearing on suicide prevention, the court is, as an initial
matter, concerned about putting off for several months
evidence that appears to relate squarely to both issues (that
is, segregation and suicide prevention), and which is of so
serious a nature. Indeed, as the plaintiffs' first motion
to present additional evidence noted, twice during the
remedial hearing on segregation the court asked to hear about
any suicides in the defendants' custody. See
Pls.' Request to Present Limited Additional Evidence
Regarding Segregation (doc. no. 1719) at 1 (citing
transcripts). However, even assuming for the sake of argument
that the fact of the alleged second suicide is irrelevant to
the segregation remedy or better suited for the September
hearing, there remains the alleged decompensation of the
inmate in segregation independent of his suicide--that is,
both his initial decompensation to the point that he was
placed on the caseload, and his subsequent decompensation to
the point of committing suicide. When asked on-the-record why
this evidence was not relevant or better suited for
the hearing on suicide prevention, counsel for the defendants
was, simply put, at a loss. Accordingly, the court concludes
that the proposed evidence is relevant to the segregation
remedy, regardless of any additional relevance to the later
issue of suicide prevention.

Second,
the defendants argue that the additional evidence is
cumulative, and would undermine judicial economy by taking up
the time and resources of the parties, the court, and the
potential witnesses. Given the alleged facts of the incident,
and the proposed schedule for hearing the evidence, the court
is convinced otherwise. Perhaps the defendants are prepared
to concede that suicides in their segregation units continue
to be such a common occurrence that the proposed evidence of
an additional suicide would merely be expected or cumulative.
In any event, while the plaintiffs are already to present
evidence regarding the alleged suicide that occurred on
February 27, there are a number of potentially distinguishing
circumstances surrounding the second alleged incident that
would provide the court with additional information: the
second alleged suicide was committed at a different facility,
and by an inmate who allegedly entered segregation while not
on the caseload, but was subsequently placed on the caseload.
As to the matter of judicial economy, the plaintiffs have
stated that they are prepared to put on the additional
evidence during the existing hearing on April 23, so there is
no need to set a separate hearing, require the counsel to
arrange separate travel to the courthouse, and so on.
Further, the plaintiffs have stated that they anticipate that
the proposed evidence, and the evidence of the first alleged
suicide, will each take approximately one-half day to put on.
There are therefore no significant concerns of judicial
economy that outweigh the value of hearing the proposed
evidence.

Third,
the defendants state they would be unfairly prejudiced by
granting the plaintiffs' motion, because the witnesses
have yet to be identified and they will not have sufficient
time to prepare. However, the motion explains that
plaintiffs' counsel had already been approved for a
meeting with potential witnesses on April 10, and would be
able to identify the testifying witnesses by the end of that
week. Given the discrete and urgent nature of the issue
raised, and the fact that the defendants have (and in fact,
control) access to the potential witnesses, the court is
satisfied that defendants will not be unfairly prejudiced by
being notified of the potential witnesses, at the latest,
approximately one-and-a-half weeks in advance. In any event,
should it become clear during the proceedings that the
defendants need an additional opportunity to respond, the
court will provide such an opportunity. The bottom line is
the court will make sure that the defendants are not unfairly
prejudiced.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally,
the defendants object that the plaintiffs&#39; second motion
suggests that they will continue to seek to introduce
evidence despite the record being &ldquo;closed, &rdquo; with
no logical endpoint. This a legitimate concern, for the
parties and the court both have an interest in finality. That
concern is bolstered by the plaintiffs&#39; resistance on the
conference call to proposing any limiting principle or
endpoint to their ability to present further evidence.
However, this interest in finality is not absolute, but--when
not otherwise barred by a rule of evidence--must be balanced
against the tendency of the additional evidence to aid the
court in arriving at a fair and just disposition of the case.
Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (permitting courts to
modify a final judgment or order, among other instances,
where “applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable”). In addition, the defendants' concern
about finality is mitigated here by the fact that the
procedural history in this case suggests a natural cutoff
after granting the instant motion: the evidence regarding the
first alleged suicide is coming in, among other reasons,
because of its urgent and central nature to the issue of
segregation remedy, and because the incident apparently
occurred prior to the parties' agreement to close
evidence and without defendants informing plaintiffs of the
issue at that time. With that hearing already set, and for
the reasons above, the court is granting ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.